Government-Run Grocery Store Is Predictably Losing Money
The folly of government-run grocery stores is sadly not a historical relic like the USSR.

Chicago's city government is infamously corrupt and unable to provide basic services like education and public safety consistently, but Mayor Brandon Johnson is pushing for the city to also try running a grocery store.
It wouldn't be the first government-run grocery store—and not even the first one in the United States. For some context about what Chicago is planning, The Wall Street Journal dispatched a reporter to check out the municipal-owned grocery store in Erie, Kansas, which opened in 2021.
How's it going there? Uh, not great.
"Erie Market, which the city took over in 2021, is losing money almost every month amid stiff competition from a Walmart 15 miles away and a Dollar General across the street," reports the Journal's Joe Barrett. Erie Market posted just a single profitable month during 2022 and lost $132,000.
Maybe Erie's erstwhile government grocers didn't realize that—unlike with other government services—grocery stores are subject to competition. Bummer.
But city officials "aren't giving up," they tell the Journal. Meanwhile, the store's manager says the "goal" is to lose only $100,000 this year.
In other words, maybe Erie should give up?
To be sure, running a grocery store is a tough, low-margin business with tons of competition. There's nothing shameful about a brand new business losing money in that environment—unless that money belongs to taxpayers, many of whom probably aren't even using the government-run store.
In Chicago, officials envision a city-owned grocery store as a way to address food deserts in neighborhoods where privately owned stores have closed and moved away. But rather than trying—and inevitably failing—to duplicate those services at the public's expense, Johnson should instead listen to why the likes of Walmart and Safeway have bailed. "Grocery operators have pointed to crime and homelessness as reasons they've needed to invest more in security, driving up costs," the Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier this year.
Grocery store chains don't have some anti-Chicago bias. If the people in charge of the city made those neighborhoods safe and economical places to do business, groceries would be as plentiful as they are anywhere else in America. Reducing Chicago's high crime rate would surely help, though that's admittedly a long-term project. But there is something city officials could do almost overnight: Reduce Chicago's commercial property tax rates, which are some of the highest in the country, or the city's high sales taxes that incentivize consumers (the ones who can, anyway) to do their shopping outside the city.
At best, a government-run grocery store is merely addressing the symptoms, not the underlying problems plaguing Chicago—and it seems unlikely to improve the symptoms, for that matter.
As Reason's Nick Gillespie pointed out last month: "This is not progress, it's decline, and on an epically confused scale. If the wide sweep of the past century or so made anything clear, it's that governments at all levels really don't need to be involved in the provision of basic goods and services, whether we're talking about food, airlines, utilities, communications, garbage hauling, health care, taxis, or even a post office (when, in the internet age, is the last time you actually visited that museum of dead letters?). We don't even need the government to get into space anymore! Yet Chicago's government needs to get in the grocery biz?"
The most famous failure of government-run grocery stores comes, naturally, from the old Soviet Union, where basic consumer necessities were often in short supply. Soviet leader Boris Yeltsin's 1989 visit to a Texas supermarket—where he was astounded by the variety and supply of goods on offer—has been credited with a significant role in the downfall of communism in Russia.
But what's happening in Erie, Kansas, (and what could happen on a larger scale in Chicago) is a useful reminder that the folly of government-run grocery stores is sadly not a historical relic like the USSR.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
so if govt run grocery stores loose money what does government run social media run out of....
does it end in Bankruptcy of ideas?
The US is just turning into a dumber and gayer version of the USSR.
Gay oeople wouldn't shop at a store like the one in Erie or the proposed one in Chi-Town.
n the John Waters-esque sector of northwest Baltimore -- equal parts kitschy, sketchy, artsy and weird -- Gerry Mak and Sarah Magida sauntered through a small ethnic market stocked with Japanese eggplant, mint chutney and fresh turmeric. After gathering ingredients for that evening's dinner, they walked to the cash register and awaited their moments of truth.
"I have $80 bucks left!" Magida said. "I'm so happy!"
"I have $12," Mak said with a frown.
The two friends weren't tabulating the cash in their wallets but what remained of the monthly allotment on their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program debit cards, the official new term for what are still known colloquially as food stamps.
Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding -- and her usual gigs -- to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she's used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.
"I'm eating better than I ever have before," she told me. "Even with food stamps, it's not like I'm living large, but it helps."
Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.
"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. "I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it's great that you can get anything."
What is this quoting? And who are these pitiful people?
I most likely make less than them and have nutritious food falling out of my pantries and fridge without SNAP/EBT! I even have harvested some peppers, cherry tomatoes, and herbs from my indoor plants! I'd have even more with an actual yard!
https://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/
Don't disparage the quality if government commodities. Looking a gift horse in the mouth...
They used to sell government cheese in the commissary. Made great grilled cheese sandwiches.
The government peanut butter was good too. My uncle was a doctor who treated poor people for nothing. A patient insisted he take the peanut butter.
As it now has.
"At best, a government-run grocery store is merely addressing the symptoms, not the underlying problems plaguing Chicago—and it seems unlikely to improve the symptoms"
That's all Democrat's do. They treat the symptoms. That way the underlying problem is not solved and it can be used again.
Oh look. A problem. Let's pass a law to fix it.
Oh look. The problem is still there, and this law caused more problems. Let's pass a few laws to address these problems.
Oh look. The problem is still there, and these new laws created a bunch of new problems. Let's pass a more laws to address these problems.
wash, rinse, repeat
Not forgetting that we have to add a bureaucracy at each step to determine why the prior step didn’t work.
to determine why the prior step didn’t work
You give them too much credit, because if that was the case you'd see laws and regulations being repealed left and right. No, their job is to write more rules. If they didn't then they'd be out of a job. They've got kids in college you know. So their incentive is to write more rules, not to determine why previous rules didn't work.
To be entirely fair, he said "determine why the prior step didn't work". He didn't say anything about doing anything with that determination. Government does all kinds of studies, many of them probably spell out government's own failures in excruciating detail. Their evidence will be discarded though because the one thing the leviathan can never do is shrink.
These good intentions just weren't backed up with enough violence and tax dollars.
Tell us about state violence, sarc.
That would be non demonized violence.
They engage “consultants” to do such studies. There is an entire industry of government consulting built around that.
They do this because it allows the polls to absolve themselves of any responsibility when it doesn’t go well.
I worked in government for half my career with this crap. As far as I’m concerned, it is the ultimate proof that government is getting involved in something they shouldn’t be. Because it clearly demonstrates that they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have the internal knowledge to be doing it in the first place.
Sadly, the majority of their constituents can’t see this. They’re blinded by the false ideal that profit is a dirty word and a government nonprofit will of course solve everything.
Then the problem is "We didn't spend enough" or "We need to invest more in".
Always! Standard governmental agency cry: “We’re underfunded for the mission”.
Especially with edumacation like they do in Baltimore where the results are completely predictable.
No they shouldn't just give up. Follow Trudeau's lead and dictate the price that food can be sold. Problem solved...right?
The problem is that Chicago liquor laws don't allow the grocery store to sell wodka to go with their beets, rotten potato (just the one), and gray mystery meat. They do however promise that the shipment of black bread will be here next week.
Reposting the tweet from the Liz Wofe featured account is apropos here:
America spent 50 years fighting the USSR to become a gay retarded version of it
Led by the same Putin/Trump authoritarian.
For 50 years? Who was that?
Biden. Is there another politician currently running things that's been in office for 50 years that you can think of?
It's fucking incredible that Grassley is 90 years old and hasn't been in the government as long as Biden. I actually have the Collier's Encyclopedia yearbook from the year he was first elected, way back when the height of fashion was a pastel-colored shirt with ruffles on it and a suit jacket with lapels that were wide enough to land a 747 on.
He's been cunning at lining his own and his son's pockets and spending 50 years living off the taxpayers. At least Fetterman never sold favors to Ukranazis.
Obviously, she has no Gay friends because no Gay people would shop in a store like the one in Erie or the proposed one in Chi-Town.
Welcome to the NewSSR.
Reducing crime and homelessness, what are you, racist?
Reducing Chicago's high crime rate would surely help, though that's admittedly a long-term project. But there is something city officials could do almost overnight: Reduce Chicago's commercial property tax rates, which are some of the highest in the country, or the city's high sales taxes that incentivize consumers (the ones who can, anyway) to do their shopping outside the city.
Sigh.
The businesses leaving said why they were leaving. They weren't shy about it. It's crime. And you can preen all you want about how reducing it is "a long-term project". But, it sure didn't take all that long to get the businesses to leave. And we have a history of places being able to successfully tackle crime. Of course, that might run afoul progressive libertarian (plenty of libertarians don't buy into this) sensibilities that criminals are the true victims of our society and shouldn't be impeded in their "alternative moralities". Hey, I love tax cuts as much as the next libertarian. But, if I'm getting that commercial tax break, I'm not putting in a supermarket. I'm putting in a bar or a payday lending shop, where protecting myself and my business aren't putting me in legal jeopardy. And sales taxes? Sorry to break it to you, but the problem isn't a lack of demand.
I think I made a comment about this the last time Reason tried to slide this through my mental entryway bouncer.
Yes, lower the tax rates. Yes, reduce the _____________ regulations. But that's not what's caused the sudden, and I do mean SUDDEN exodus of businesses. This is a shallow attempt to whistle past the graveyard of the left-libertarian don't-arrest-anyone-for-anything-because-they're-just-put-upon-by-society ideas that were no longer relegated to wonky think tank conference rooms, but tried in real time on the ground.
You can't continue to operate a business when the profits are wiped out by theft. When month after month the store loses millions in theft, or that shoppers are not safe even inside the stores.
That the leadership in Chicago have not been able to figure that out, indicates a total lack of intellect.
So, who are these "libertarians" saying that people shouldn't be punished for violence or theft? I don't really see it, but that may be because I think "libertarian" actually means something fairly specific.
You must choose between lawless streets full of homeless drug addicts/looters and cops who break into people's homes in the middle of the night to shoot them. There is apparently no in between.
What if both exist in the same city as they do in Chicago?
See my answer to Zeb below.
It's really not my fault that some libertarians have conflated prosecuting actual low-level crime with "cops breaking into people’s homes in the middle of the night to shoot them". Maybe you should take it up with the contingent of commenters here who declare "THERE ARE NO GOOD COPS!" on just about any article concerning criminal justice.
Not just "There are no good cops!"; caught steeped in the victims' blood, murder weapon in hand is always insufficient evidence for a murder conviction because blood science is junk science, people mistype other people's blood all the time, and there is always other people's DNA at the scene. Further, even if the perp were caught steeped in the victims' blood, murder weapon in hand, only libertarian vigilantes would be allowed to execute them in the moment (despite the fact that blood science is junk science and there's always other people's DNA at the scene) because lawyers, judges, juries, and police officers are too fallible.
DNA is 172% rock solid science when it exonerates the convicted rapist.
I personally know a couple blue pilled libertarians with whom being anti-cop ended up becoming a driving factor. It’s a thing.
It's been my experience that many of those types of libertarians (and I personally know some) went that route because they thought it to be the fast lane to making friends with the "cool kids" on the left.
Sure, no libertarians were supportive of the "decriminalization" of shoplifting. And no libertarians made excuses for the Soros DAs. And, golly, libertarians dismissing "broken windows" was totally not a thing.
Am I sounding sufficiently gaslighted?
“I think we should support the protesters” – Jo Jorgensen
Even in her full quote, objectively: “Libertarians have been talking about these issues for 40 years, I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement.”
Have libertarians been calling it “Black Lives Matter” for 40 yrs. or is it possible that other people in the movement view “you” as the opportunists to be shaken off? Because we already went through the "All Lives Matter" iteration getting punched down.
I haven’t read the article, but from the sign visible from the Google Street View from 2014, “Stub’s Market”, I gather that the Erie Market is an example of lemon socialism, which is an easy enough trap to fall into. Certain businesses are perceived as both necessary and granular enough that when one fails, it looks locally like a catastrophe that can be averted by just temporarily making up some slight losses in operating expenses, which there doesn’t look to be any fast-acting alternative to. And then as losses mount and the public fisc subsidizes them, it’s uneconomic for free enterprise to go into that kind of business in that area. So the lemon is sustained indefinitely.
Hah! There's even a Wikipedia entry on Lemon socialism.
Getting a good portion of your merchandise continuously stolen is a good reason to leave.
It's a good reason for the proprietor to leave, unless it's government. It's not a good reason for the customers to suffer.
I don't know what the issue was for Stub's in Erie. May have been crime or any of a bunch of other factors. There might have been a gradual drop-off in clientele as younger people drove to Wal-Mart. Old people and the carless locally would be suddenly left with no convenient option once Stub realized it was time to pull the plug.
Food trucks might be a good entrepreneurial opportunity there, but not if the now municipally owned market, i.e. the voters, wanted to keep undercutting it. Another possibility would be for the municipality to sell its market to a private co-op, and then only those who wanted it would have to pay the bills.
I’m guessing they simply lost money. Erie is a small town in Kansas of a little over 1,000 population. In addition to the city-run grocer, there’s a Dollar General and a liquor store. There’s a grocer about 6-7 miles away in nearby St. Paul, and a Walmart Supercenter and another grocer about 16-17 away in Chanute. Food trucks probably are not an option with the low, rural population.
It's a big step down from town with grocery store to town with dollar store. Population's probably been declining for decades, and caught up with the economics of making a profit.
It's not very libertarian, but it's understandable. Costs about $100 per resident to keep the place going, as long as the losses are manageable, it's worth it to them.
Government doesn't care if it makes a profit. It's funding comes from the taxpayer. It's simply cosplaying a grocery store because no real ones want to do business there. And as everyone knows, government has to "do something".
Why couldn't a local co-op start up?
Running a co-op requires work and responsible behavior.
Totally lacking in Chicago.
Good idea. Are they free to do so? Would they also run at a loss?
When will we get the article examining how stupid and immoral it is for modern, educated Americans in strong, successful communities to be asked to contribute billions of dollars to subsidize internet service for the depleted human residue remaining in America's can't-keep-up rural stretches after generations on the wrong side of bright flight and backwater religious schooling?
That handout is likely to be as bad an idea as rural electrification, a counterproductive fuck-up that mostly just enabled bigoted, half-educated slack-jaws to connect to rally for Trump, attack our Capitol, and diminish our nation.
What has that got to do with food deserts in your “strong, successful communities”?
Try to find someone who has been educated and can explain this for you. Even if you must travel through four or five towns to find an educated person, it would be worthhile.
Carry on, clinger.
Fuck off, Kirkland.
If Chicago got even more fucked up under your ally Lightfoot, you slack-jawed hicklib, I'm really looking forward to seeing how much further into the hole Mayor Urkel can dig it.
Funny how all these big cities didn’t have these problems when the slack-jawed republicans were running them.
The last time a slack-jawed Republican ran Chicago was in the 1930's.
And then things got better?
"Hold my beer" Brandon J.
So you're saying you're not educated and can't explain it?
Why don't you see if your flourishing cape can help you fly like Superman!
Carry on, Klinger!
Not a thing, but Artie is a retarded fuckstain.
Says the housing challenged alcoholic who is routinely expelled from his local public library for leaching Wi-Fi.
Don’t insult the homeless by comparing them to him.
They just don't have the right people in charge!
Top Men Grocery!
🙂
😉
What does government run efficiently or effectively? NOTHING. Why do we allow them to increase their presence and power. Government, at all levels, Federal, State and Local are ALL POWER
MAD AND DISGRACEFUL! The Bureaucracies are the least competent, clinging on to high pay, great benefits, high job security and pitiful performance!
Let's see...the federal gov couldn't run a whorehouse they had seized in Nevada.... I suspect a grocery store is a little more complicated.
Damned Kulaks! We must force food suppliers and customers to follow the expert plan!
Find Moose and Squirrel in abandoned parking lot for Fearless Leader Special in Meat Department!
🙂
😉
Erie Market posted just a single profitable month during 2022 and lost $132,000.
Maybe not "predictably losing money" as much as "wildly exceeding expectations at losing money". I mean, AFAIK, I've never been to Eerie, KS much less the market, but if you asked me to predict their annual gross margins, something on the order of $13M/yr. feels a bit off.
>>I’ve never been to Eerie, KS
1000 people live there how are they supposed to help a grocer turn a profit?
‘Running a grocery store’ is akin to ‘operating buses’ or ‘running an airline’. It is not something that government can ever be competent at because the slew of operating/management decisions just aren’t political at core.
D’s advocate running this stuff purely because of the jobs they claim credit for. R’s oppose this stuff – but historically in cities they opposed it SOLELY because of corruption. To tilt the market towards producers/companies and away from consumers. It is one reason R cannot be elected in cities (consumers vote – company mgmt lives in suburbs – R mayors had no problem killing their own cities). It is also a reason that zoning became single-purpose and large-scale. That creates geographic monopolies (or nothing) within walking distance. When those fail – food deserts – with all the barriers to entry still in place. I’ll bet that Chicago food deserts have those same mega-zones around them.
It’s really a shame that there is no urban-based opposition to D’s. R’s and L’s are totally stuck on stupid with no hope of seeing the appropriate and legitimate alternative role for government.
Instead of the above three bolded above – government does have a role re land. So ‘zoning that encourages competition and neutral tax rates’ or ‘airport and leasing landing/slot rights’ or ‘same as airports except bus stops/depots/etc’
To tilt the market towards producers/companies and away from consumers. It is one reason R cannot be elected in cities (consumers vote – company mgmt lives in suburbs –
What kind of fool believes Dems cater to consumers? They cater to workers, primarily government workers, with promises of higher pay and protection from performance expectations and accountability. The Dem economic plan sucks for consumers.
"What kind of fool believes Dems cater to consumers?...
The kind of fool who swore we were all gonna die from the 'rona unless we wore masks all day and night.
In Chicago, all the merchandise would go out the door on opening day with nothing in the cash register to show for it. Heck, the cash register might just follow the other goods out the door. Or, would the mayor have the city-owned store manned by armed cops given instructions to shoot to kill? Would THIS store be allowed to stop shoplifters unlike Wal-mart and Target?
The mayor would announce a special day for non demonized shoplifting. One day and one day only.
Remember: don't demonize.
Maybe, it wasn't until government became the primary student loan lender that the government made student loans not generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. You know, because the government didn't want to get ripped off by deadbeats. Government run grocery store might be the one to start arresting and prosecuting shoplifters.
'Real socialism has never been tried', socialists said.
'Yes, but every type of socialism has tried this specific thing, and every time it's been a failure', everyone else replied.
Socialists: *pocket sand*
Imagine if the grocery store Yeltsin visited had been like this one, he’d have figured the US wasn’t any better than Russia after all.
Socialism only works in small cohesive groups.
Like kibbutzes in Israel
And the Hutterites
Idiots, basically.
Detroit took what like 25 years after the auto industry started leaving for greener pastures, to turn into a distopian wreck. Chicago’s motto should be.. “Welcome to Chicago the new Detroit, we can screw it even faster.”
As long as liberals and joggers continue to run the city, expect nothing but the worst.
Government grocery could work if two things happen. First a law has to be passed that prohibits a private market within a 200 mile radius of the government store. This would solve the competition problem.
Regarding security and theft, since this is a government store, the national guard can be brought in to not only keep the shelfs stocked, but also shoot looters on sight.
There, problem solved.
'Back the blue! We need law and order! Who you going to call when someone breaks into your house?'
'Defund the police! All they do is harass us, and they don’t do shit when someone breaks into our house!'
Funny how neither side suggests that the law is the problem.
sadfwad
Soviet grocery stores didn't have product because the state ran them
moron
They didn't have product because of a centrally planned economy
author is obviously 15 and his middle school history teacher is embarrassed.
Governments do run retail outlets, NH liquor stores[commie central NH] with probably similar levels of stupidity and corruption as private stores
Governments do run retail outlets, NH liquor stores[commie central NH] with probably similar levels of stupidity and corruption as private stores
But with terrible-er hours and no understanding of locationlocationlocation.
"...author is obviously 15 and his middle school history teacher is embarrassed..."
Don't be so jealous.
Most "state stores" have no competition, by law.
Well government run grocery stores are just stupid. On the other hand a fleet of government run food trucks...? I mean Reason keeps telling us that government run tollways are a free market solution to congestion. I'm going to wait for Reason Institute to weigh in before I pick a side here.
Railroad lovers largely believe that while improving over time, the U.S. railways are still inferior to rail systems in Europe/EU and elsewhere. The two most salient characteristics here are a) the much greater distances U.S. rail systems have to cover, and b) the much greater level of public cost, defined as total public subsidies and investments.[1]
In Europe and elsewhere railway systems are frequently managed as public/private partnerships similar to but better than those that manage many mass transit/rapid transit systems in the U.S. The fact of the matter is that railways that operate safely, efficiently, and on time cost a lot of money. So it's not accurate to say something like "governments can't run anything", when the evidence is there that many do. We don't mind having public money spent on air and road transit or a new sports stadium. The evidence is also there that high-performance rail systems actually do foster widespread economic growth and general prosperity, whereas new sports stadiums don't. You could look it up.
[1] https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-performance-index
Literally no one here supports spending taxpayer dollars on sports stadiums. What the fuck are you going on about?
Daddyhill seems to have gotten lost.
It's a real shame Mr. Boehm didn't do some basic research before writing this article. He says lower the sales tax. But there is no sales tax on grocery items. He never mentions the US military's worldwide system of base exchanges. Yes, government run grocery stores that have been in business for many decades. Sheesh, Eric. There's this thing called "the Internet" where you can look stuff up. You oughta try it.
Chicago: We're not going to arrest anyone for shoplifting because racism.
Stores: Shit, we're losing our shirts, let's close the chicago stores.
Reason: Allow an increase to sign height!
Chicago: We’re not going to arrest anyone for shoplifting because racism.
Although hinted at in the article, it was never explicitly stated why Walmart closed down 4 stores in Chicago. Rampant theft was the cause. These stores had never been profitable because of this.
Walmart closed 4 across the region. Two of them, in Chicago proper, were closed due to theft. I suspect the one in Homewood (near Harvey) was closed for the same reason. The fourth, in Plainfield, was probably closed due to 4 other Walmarts nearby cannibalizing sales from it, as well as a Target across the street and a Meijer a mile away (both of which are still open and busy).
Please don't demonize.
"If WalMart be closin deys stores, where muh peoples gonna go to shoplif and shit." Mayor Brandon Johnson.
Yes, government run grocery stores that have been in business for many decades.
A military commissary is in no way comparable to Mayor Urkel's social experiment. Most of the customers at those places aren't even active duty, they're retirees. Same thing with the base exchanges.
Trying to compare a commissary, which is in a highly controlled military landscape that restricts access to the base, versus a municipal grocery store where any dumbshit can walk in is like comparing apples to borscht.
I mean, EdG….
"...But there is no sales tax on grocery items..."
Ed is once again proving to be full of shit; only certain foods are non-taxable, asshole.
"He never mentions the US military’s worldwide system of base exchanges."
Which are non-profits, supported by the taxpayer and have no competition.
You might try an activity known to many of us as "thinking', but it's doubtful you have the ability to do so.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Yes, there is sales tax on grocery items in Illinois. There's a 1% tax on food items, and municipalities and counties can add to that (my area is 1.75%). There's also regular sales tax on candies made without flour and on pop. There's the base sales tax for the state, and whatever municipalities and counties add to it. It's about 10% in Chicago.
Ed's competing with turd for the lying award. And the "stupid" one.
“the US military’s worldwide system of base exchanges.” True, and they don’t suffer massive theft problems.
Um, doesn't that competition indicate that A) they're not food deserts; B) that privately owned stores haven't closed/moved away?
Maybe we could put them on Amtrak...and 10 years down the road vote benefits for all the grcoery employess whose work didn't generate enough profit to fund healthcare for them
Yeah !!!
So you want Chicago to cut taxes but also increase security (police). Typical right-libertarian ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in the head at the same time.
One can have lower taxes and police protection if government expenditures are limited to protecting Life, Liberty, and Property and not used for wealth redistribution (such as government stores) or the suppression of vice.
Shows how foreign cutting spending or god forbid, waste, in other places is to them. Never even crosses their mind.
Or just simply squandering it away on administration.
Politicians are not nearly competent to run governments; you expect them to do better with something as complicated as running a business?
People who want government run grocery stores have obviously never been to a government run liquor store.
Okay sure, some weirdo Bernie Bros in Vermont think that would be paradise, but I can't help but think of that scene in The Americans where Martha ended up in Soviet Russia, doing her daily shopping in a Soviet grocer, and it was to me the most depressing scene in the entire series. And yes, that's what a government run liquor store feels like.
I guess it depends on the state. I just came back from the vicinity of St. George, Utah, and the state liquor store we went to was a lot bigger, with better selection and better prices than the little mom-and-pop private stores that NY state is limited to. Almost as good as the Total Wine stores in NY and CT.
A Mormon State has better liquor stores than New York? I find that hard to believe.
It's not a Mormon State. It's a State with a lot of Mormons. There's a difference.
True, but it's even a surprise that they have liquor stores of any kind.
A certain area of southern Michigan is known as Michigan's bible belt. Lots of Dutch Christian Reformed. Many of the local townships are dry.
Closet drinkers, the lot of them. Sneak into Grand Rapids to the local bars to get buzzed.
Thanks for the information. I’m planning on visiting Chicago in the not-too-distant future and I was actually wondering where I could get dodgy meat at above-market prices from surly petty bureaucrats in an unsafe neighborhood, so now I can add that to my itinerary.
Mayor Brandon proposes government run grocery stores . When I first read about this a month ago I nearly laughed myself to death. That low IQ jogger is even dumber than N.Y. City's ignorant cue ball headed pretender to be mayor.
Well, it might work OK if you can prevent the shoppers from being shot, robbed or car jacked.
Let's go Brandon.
Remember, don't demonize.
"Grocery store chains don't have some anti-Chicago bias."
Chicago had a longstanding anti-Walmart bias, undoubtedly fueled by the jewel/osco monopoly with their labor union (UFCW 1546) support. So low income people in Chicago paid the price. So Walmart just opened stores across the street from the Chicago city limits, and eventually the city had to cave
Losing money is part of the plan. People pushing for government-run stores don't want them to be profitable or even break even. The whole point is to force taxpayers to subsidize groceries for low-income consumers.